Do you think Mark McGwire should be in the Hall of Fame?

[BuckeyePride]

Yes he should be. HOF is all about numbers.

 

[tyrus]

Crime dog had 2500 MORE ABS.. not less. Know that's what you meant, but that's not what I read.

Thanks. I fixed it.

I'M hung up on 500? It seems like everyone is hung up on 500. One of my major points is that 500 HRs used to be a "benchmark" for hall worthiness. Now it isn't, in my view, in the juice era. OK, so not many people have more than McGwire...yet. But there will be a lot more people who reach, approach, pass, and exceed it that started playing right around the time he finished.

And spare me the injury argument. Jeeesus, if that's not a reach, I don't know what is. If Griffey kept from tearing all his hamstrings every year, maybe he would end up hitting 1000 home runs, if Gayle Sayers stayed healthy, he might have rushed for 30,000 yards...what's your point? If people want to mock the "take away McGwire's HRs and look what you have" argument, then you certainly can't cling to this one either.

I brought up Fielder because everyone made a huge deal when he hit 50 in 1990...he was the second player (with George Foster) to hit 50 home runs since 1965. 1965! He hit 44 the following year (also leading the league) and finished 2nd in the MVP voting both seasons. Foster won the MVP when he hit 52. Brady Anderson, by contrast, hit 50 in 1996 and barely cracked the top 10 in the MVP voting. Why would that be?

So some can discount the obvious, and swear up and down that it was "harder" to hit the home runs in the 1990s because you don't "buy" the stadium and pitching and expansion arguments, but the FACTS are that from 1966 to 1995 exactly two players hit 50 home runs...one time each. The LEAGUE LEADERS from 1982 to 1995 hit 40 home runs or less 16 times...out of a possible 28 when counting both leagues. After 1995, miraculously apparently, the league leaders hit 50 or more 10 times out of 20. Out of those 20 (10 years, 2 leagues), the leader hit 47 or more 19/20 times...and hit over 60 3 times. If you don't think that indicates that home runs were more prevalent, then I don't know what to say.

So worship McGwire if you want...do I think he "did it more impressively that anyone else?" Well, he did have bigger arms I guess...

I have come to the conclusion you are an extremist. You think that b/c people offer counter-points to your argument we think MM is a God or we worship him? That is the 2nd time you have made a statement like that. I am a fan of baseball, my favorite players are Roger Clemens and Junior. This argument isnt that important to me, I just like the debate.

yes I do think you are hung up on 500 and as far as I can see, nobody else is. Most recognize he crushed the 500 mark in record fashion and brought more to the game than HRs. I havent seen anyone say "well, he hit 500, put him in"

I agree, 500 is not as impressive as it once was...I will give you that. But when you are 7th all time and got there in a minimum of 2000 less ABs than everyone else, well, that has to carry some weight.

I see your point about steroids, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree about his credentials on the field.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BL -

I've been thinking about putting together a post that plots hitting performance over pitching performance over time (1900 - 2005)... it's a little more than I want to get in to at the moment.... charts and graphs etc....

Regarding "ease" of numbers, it would appear to me, there was no better time to be a hitter in the major leagues than between the years 1920 - 1940. Major League batting avg. was up at its highest of all time during this era (the entire NL averaged a batting average north of .300 in the late 20s), there was a spike in HRs, strikeouts were at an all time low and, ERA was higher than today's ERAs. It was a hitters game. Thinking of the HOFs from this era, mostly hitters like Gehrig, Foxx, Ruth, etc.. with few dominant pitchers at all... the theory appears to be valid.

Conversely, the era 1960 - 1980 elicits a pitching dominated game, with HRs and hits suffering, Ks at a high (and considerably higher than the era preceding it (1940-1960)) while the league avg. ERA took a steady turn downward. Bob Gibson, Sandy Kofax, Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Fergie Jenkins, and so on... Hitters from this era in the hall? There's still some real good ones, of course... Mays, Aaron, Kaline. But, the Hall is, of course, dominated by Hitters over Pitchers. I should see how the 1960 - 1980 era stacks up with respect to # of inductees from this era v. otehr eras.. I think i'd find the 60s produced the largest number of HOF pitchers ever... but, that's another query.

Today's game appears to be dominated by "power" both hitting and pitching. Ks at an all time high, HRs also at an all time high. Relative to itself, however, this era is much the same as the 1940 - 1960 era which featured something approaching equality in terms of pitching v. hitting.

Anyway, maybe I'll get to it at some point....

 

[OH10]

I realize that. What I was driving at was more in terms of your demand that he prove he didn't juice.... or, "answer the question" I don't think that's fair, and it doesn't matter if I'm in a court room or not, I try not to make people prove the negative.

I just don't see the analogy to criminal justice. It's a privilege, not a right to be in the Hall of Fame. A better analogy might be to that of becoming an attorney. It's a privilege to be an attorney.

I don't think it's unfair for McGwire to answer a question relevant to his admission to the Hall, just as its not unfair for the Bar Admissions committee to have asked you or I questions for admission to the bar. I couldn't refuse to answer those questions and he can't refuse to answer this one.

 

[jlb1705]

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Upstanding Citizens. Put him in - he's a major part of baseball history, and excluding him is a bad attempt at whitewashing the history books, just like they're doing with Pete Rose. I think that's irresponsible on the part of MLB.

That said, if you're gonna enshrine somebody like this, put on his plaque EVERYTHING he became famous (or infamous) for, whether is was hits, home runs, walks, no-hitters, strikeouts, philanthropy, womanizing, racism, illicit drug use, or gambling. If players know that all that stuff is gonna go on their plaque when they end up in Cooperstown, maybe they'll think a little more about their legacy before they do something bad.

I believe the Hall of Fame should tell the story of the history of the highest level of the game. That means it should include all the players, eras, and sidestories, whether good or bad.

 

[CookyPuss]

It seems that most who think McGwire does not belong in the HOF believe that he took steroids and lied about it. They believe that he cheated. The "steroid era" of baseball can be marked at the decade from 1995-2004. This span saw a rapid spike in home runs and jersey sizes. Jose Can-Cocksucker-seco says this was because pretty much everyone was "juicing." Unfortunately, the so-called expert on the subject has about as much integrity as your local crystal meth dealer. What is often missing is the discussion of "supplements" which were legal and readily available at the time.

McGwire admitted to taking andro and even endorsed it. Was it a steroid? Yes. From Mayo Clinic website:

Many people are unaware that so-called natural steroids, such as androstenedione (andro) and DHEA, are anabolic steroids. The only difference between natural and synthetic steroids is that synthetic steroids are made in a lab and chemically altered in some way. Because natural steroids contain "natural" substances that aren't chemically altered, they can be marketed as dietary supplements that increase strength and build muscle. As supplements, they're not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. LINK

Such supplements were completely legal through 2004. The ban on such supplements did not take place until January 2005 LINK. I don't have time to research MLB lists of banned substances, but I don't have any reason to suspect that these products were on such a list during the 1998 season. They were included as part of the new drug policy which was also put into effect in 2005 LINK.

Why is this important? Any player in MLB during the years that McGwire was playing could have taken a "natural" anabolic steroid and have done nothing illegal, immoral, or against the rules of baseball. This was a problem that nobody was prepared to deal with. Do I think that players were taking illegal steroids as well during this time? Absolutely. They are more effective in delivering the desired results more quickly. The problem exists in that you cannot prove who took the illegal stuff, who took the then legal but now illegal/banned stuff, and who took nothing.

Prior to the attention given to McGwire in 98, very few people were aware that andro and similar substances are steroids. In fact, much of that confusion continues. Outside of medical professionals, you don't hear people refer to andro as a steroid. People still debate whether or not McGwire "juiced." The real question is whether or not he also used illegal synthetic steroids in addition to natural steroids like andro.

McGwire had the on the field credentials for the HOF. Saying that if you take away his homers, he is just an average player is like saying if you take away Rollie Fingers saves, he is just and average pitcher. That argument does not work. Because it is entirely possible and plausible that he achieved these accomplishments by legal and within the rules of the game methods, I do not believe that there are sufficient grounds for not including him in the HOF. That is, unless you treat everyone else who played during this era by the same standard and exclude guys like Griffey and Clemens as well.

 

[OH10]

I think we need to start a poll on Bonds, and see if it would be as close. I get the feeling that McGwire is just more revered because he wasn't prick like Bonds.

But does anyone here want to see Barry Bonds break Hank Aaron's record? If he did, would you consider it legit?

 

[tyrus]

I think we need to start a poll on Bonds, and see if it would be as close. I get the feeling that McGwire is just more revered because he wasn't prick like Bonds.

But does anyone here want to see Barry Bonds break Hank Aaron's record? If he did, would you consider it legit?

One difference with the 2 is there is a lot more smoke with Bonds. With his trainer, BALCO, leaked testimony, Game of Shadows, etc. I agree, the general public sees Bonds as an asshole, plus he is black. McGwire is white, and decent guy. But with me, one telling peice of info on Bonds is his physical changes are consistent with steroid use. He started as a lead off hitter, base stealer, ok power....then he transformed and it matched the timeline with his alleged roid use. But, personally, I feel the same way I do about MM, he is a product of this era.

 

[BB73]

I think we need to start a poll on Bonds, and see if it would be as close. I get the feeling that McGwire is just more revered because he wasn't prick like Bonds.

But does anyone here want to see Barry Bonds break Hank Aaron's record? If he did, would you consider it legit?

For me, there's a significant difference between McGwire taking Andro when it was legal (with pure speculation as to whether he also took illegal steroids); and Bonds admitting he took the cream and the clear, but stating that he "didn't know" he was taking steroids.

Bonds clearly broke the rules of baseball at the time, while we don't know if that's true about McGwire.

 

[Dryden]

One difference with the 2 is there is a lot more smoke with Bonds. With his trainer, BALCO, leaked testimony, Game of Shadows, etc. I agree, the general public sees Bonds as an asshole, plus he is black. McGwire is white, and decent guy. But with me, one telling peice of info on Bonds is his physical changes are consistent with steroid use. He started as a lead off hitter, base stealer, ok power....then he transformed and it matched the timeline with his alleged roid use. But, personally, I feel the same way I do about MM, he is a product of this era.

And Bonds's head increased by about 14" in circumference over the past 6 or 7 years, which doesn't happen by hitting the free weights at Gold's Gym, last time I checked.

 

[tyrus]

And Bonds's head increased by about 14" in circumference over the past 6 or 7 years, which doesn't happen by hitting the free weights at Gold's Gym, last time I checked.

Exactly. That is what I was implying with saying his physical changes are consistent with roid use.


BB73 brings up other good points.

 

[Thump]

And Bonds's head increased by about 14" in circumference over the past 6 or 7 years, which doesn't happen by hitting the free weights at Gold's Gym, last time I checked.

Sure it's not due to him being in to himself so much?

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

OK, so I did my compilation of Hall Of Fame Pitchers and the era there career was in (obviously, there are those who spanned two eras, when this happened I basically took the era that the bulk of his career was played in.)

Each era is 20 years.

The Era ending 1900 has 7 HOF Pitchers. I don't know if pre-1900 would be considered a hitters or pitchers era, and I'm not gonna figure it out.

The Era ending 1920, and according to my post above, a "pitchers era" statistically finds 15 HOF Pitchers.

The Era ending 1940, and according to my post above, a hitters era (I think I refered to this era as "the 1920's" above, meaning the 20's forward), sees 13 HOF Pitchers - More on these guys below.

The Era ending 1960, an "even" era according to my post above, sees 7 HOF Pitchers inducted.

The Era ending 1980, a Pitching era according to my post above, sees 16 HOF Pitchers inducted.

The Era ending 2000 includes one inductee, Dennis Eckersly.

Relevance? Well, none, really. But, my idea was that the HOF would reflect the nature of the game in different eras, with "pitching eras" seeing more Pitchers selected for the hall over "hitting" eras. Obviously, that does not mean that there aren't outstanding indivudual talents throwing the ball in a "hitters" era, and as I noted above, the hitters era from 1920 - 1940 sees 13 inductees.

Those inductees: Dizzy Dean, Red Faber, Lefty Gomez, Burleigh Grimes, Lefty Grove, Jesse Haines, Waite Hoyt, Carl Hubbell, Ted Lyons, Herb Pennock, Eppa Rixey, Red Ruffing, and Dazzy Vance. If you're like me, you're looking at this list and thinking, "Who the fuck are these people?" I mean, I know who Lefty Grove is, Dizzy Dean, Hoyt, Hubbell and even Gomez, but who in the hell are these other guys?

Eppa Rixey's Career 266-251 3.15 with 1350Ks. Hall Worthy? I guess so.
Dizzy Dean's Career 150-83 3.02 with 1163Ks.

You can look at the stats of the rest of these guys yourself Starting Here. I don't find many of them at all impressive, and in as much as I never saw them play, I can't for the life of me figure out why they're in the hall. Herb Pennock? (240-162, 3.60 with 1227Ks)

Contrasting that list with names like Cy Young, Christy Mathewson, Walter Johnson, Mordeci Brown, and Ed Walsh from the 1900 - 1920 era... Or names like Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Palmer, Bob Gibson and Rollie Fingers (Just like saying Rollie Fingers).

It's no wonder it was tougher to hit in the 1970s. Same as it was back in the 1910's. Pitching was better. And, time will tell, I suppose, but I'd say pitching has been poor of late... that's not to say there aren't some very very good pitchers out there, even HOF pitchers... Of course there are. But, there are more outstanding hitters... and it's a simple ebb and flow of the game. They didn't roid up in the 1920s - 1940s and there was an offensive explosion.... outlawing the Spitball probably had a little to do with it, and not using the same ball forever helped as well. And, while I am not so niave to suggest that Roids aren't a factor in the offensive explosion of the 1990s into the 2000s, it's not the only issue - and once again, pitchers were taking juice too. All things being equal, roid use is a non-factor relative to it's own era. Are the numbers inflated as against other eras?

Depends on the era, I guess. Babe Ruth had years where he hit 54, 59, 60 and 54 homeruns. Are McGwire's years of 52, 58, 70, 65 really all that different? We know Ruth wasn't juiced. McGwire may or may not have been... We also know that Ruth didn't work out... unless eating hot dogs and drinking beer is a work out. McGwire did.

*** Edit: thought something looked wrong... Corrected Bob Gibson... he was incorrectly listed in the wrong era (1940's)

 

[tyrus]

I am not sure if this supports your info/theory, but many historians credit the increase in HRs post-1920 to using more balls during games. In 1919 a guys was hit in the head with a pitch in the late innings and he died from the injury. They said if they used newer/whiter balls, he would have been able to see the ball better. So in 1920, they started using more than 1-2 balls per game. This woudl help the hitters due to newer balls arent mush yet and they could see them better.

Then during your pitching era is when they raised the mound up. I cant remember the exact dates, but this was a huge benefit to pitchers and took hitters longer to adjust to the pitchers new found leverage.

good info BKB.

 

[tyrus]

Just found that in the 60s the mound was 16" high and in 69 they developed the standard 10" that is still in existence today.

Early on, the rubber was 45' from the plate and there wasnt a mound at all.

Some good links, off topic, but still interesting....especially the last.

http://experts.about.com/q/Baseball-Trivia-General-2552/Pitcher-mound.htm

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/stadium/baseball_field_construction.shtml

http://www.sportsknowhow.com/baseball/field-dimensions/baseball-field-dimensions.html

http://www.19cbaseball.com/field.html